tv Today in Washington CSPAN April 9, 2011 2:00am-6:00am EDT
this budget is quite austere. we are taking a $178 billion in saving costs identified by secretary gates, following 100 billion which could be an investment and higher priorities and wiser spending. i say this is a verybudget and n perspective. i am an old army guy. i had three sons who went to the naval academy and then chose the marine corps. nonetheless, at least they do take seriously their responsibility as young people to stand up for our country. if you look at where we are right now, and just very macro kind of numbers, you do not have to be much of an expert. just think of it in terms of the number of troops or soldiers, the number of aircraft, or the
number of ships we have. in each of those categories, we are now roughly at 50% of where we were 20 years ago. our navy today is the same size as our navy in 1916. so our military would not be what you would call vast by standards of 20 years ago. we are halfway. that being understood, i would happen no problems with that budget were we not dealing with an economic reality which is most austere and stern. it requires all of us to take a very solid look at our spending and deal with the fact that we are vastly over spending the revenues we can generate from within our own country. given the overall balance of what we have to do, this is
probably the best compromise we could come up with. i have heard the minority leader talk about what is responsible, what is courageous. the america i know, coming from the state of missouri, has a positive attitude. it says we have had some problems before. we have had whopper big problems. we are quick to tighten our belt. we are going to go forward and talk about things. we are going to talk about the best solution and move forward. i do not feel why it is up to these standards of what the constituents we represent say. i would respect the criticisms much more if the democrats had a
budget. they did not have a budget. instead, we have brought this budget forward, seriously trying to find a good balance, even though places like the fans are pretty tight. what we are hearing is a lot of criticism. but i think i like what we do better than what the democrats do not do do -- the democrats do not do. >> history walks with us as we begin our work today. fortunately, it offers some guidance as well. history offers not a single example of a nation that has spent, borrowed, and attacked its way to prosperity. but it offers us many examples of nations that have spent, borrowed, and taxed their way to economic ruin and bankruptcy. history is screaming and warning there. nations that bankrupt
themselves are not around long. before you can provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare, you have to be able to pay for it. the ability of our nation to do so is now in trade and fishery economists -- is now in great danger. economists have warned as we have a few years to avoid a sovereign debt crisis and the collapse of the united states government. as we look at what to do and what not to do, we know what not to do. we can look at the response to the recession of 1929. by increasing federal spending by a staggering 60% in just four years, they began by imposing a tariff act on a 20,000 imported products. it boosted the federal income tax from 23% to 65%.
franklin roosevelt amplified and expanded these programs and the unemployment rate was as high as when he started. we lost an entire decade. in 1945, harry truman slashed federal income taxes. in 1946, truman cut the federal budget from $85 million down to $30 billion in a single year. he fired a million federal employees. it was cold war demobilization. economists predicted a renewed depression. instead, there was a postwar economic boom. i reached out to my friends on the other side of the aisle and there praise of bill clinton. but we have to look at the policies that produced the prosperity. during his administration, bill clinton reduced federal spending by a miraculous 3% of gdp.
he dared to touch the third rail of entitlement spending. but this would have amounted to the biggest capital gains tax cut in history. he delivered the only four budget surpluses in the last 40 years and a period of economic prosperity. by contrast, george w. bush is worthy of criticism. again, we have to look at the policies. he recklessly increased federal spending. he reintroduced the discorded stimulus spending. he produced a massive budget deficits. if entitlements spending and stimulus programs and massive increases were the road to
prosperity, i submit that the bush administration should have produced a new golden age for the economy. let us concentrate on policy. in the mid-1990s, a republican congress and balanced the budget, reform entitlement spending, placed us on a path to pay off the entire national debt, and produced economic expansion and prosperity. this budget before us today turns away from the policies we held do not work toward policies renewed to work. it brings federal spending back under control. it puts medicare and medicaid on a sound financial condition. it produces a million new private-sector jobs per year through the economic expansion. it puts us on a path so that
when my children retire, the systems they have paid into their entire lives will be safe and secure and the nation will be debt-free and prosperous. >> as has already been sent, we all know what we are here today for. that is to consider a budget that i believe is a courageous first step in getting our country back on a sound financial footing. the fact all of us know, but some of us are denying, is that our nation is on the brink of a financial crisis. america is $14 trillion in the red, thanks to the big spending of washington, d.c. the tidal wave of that will keep coming unless we stop it now. i came to washington not to score cheap political points or throw bombs. i came here to find solutions to the problems that threaten the very greatness of this country. i look at my 6 grandchildren,
and i want them to have the same opportunities that i had growing up. i believe this budget is a start getting up there. the truth is, if we do not leave our grandchildren and our kids a better future, unless we act like adults today and have a real conversation about our future economic growth. that is a basic premise we all should be available to acknowledge. the budget can sustain itself by spending more than it takes in. it applies to a family budget and needs to apply to washington's budget. this plan applies to that principle. our budget blocks in savings forceful spending caps for 2012. it lays plans for spending caps for the next decade. it addresses not only what washington spends, but also how
our tax dollars are spent. keeping in mind that our current $14 trillion debt -- this budget requires any increase in debt levels to be accompanied by serious spending reductions. it is time to get serious about the culture of big spending here in washington that has brought us to the edge of this financial clef. i challenge everyone here today to have a serious discussion about the financial future of our country and what we can do to fix this fiscal mess we are in. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> yesterday, when the budget committee unveiled this republican vision for the
country, one thing was evident. washington has to change the way it does business. it has to stop thinking all problems can be fixed with more money, more federal intervention, or a combination of the two. i support a change in the way the states to receive medicaid funding. the cost of medicaid will sort out of control and the program will continue to overtake a large share of the budget with little regard for efficiency, effectiveness, and innovation. medicaid spending is spinning out of control. from my experiences in kansas, i know that is not the solution. in 2003, a co-chaired a medicaid task force.
the state of kansas and many other states are limited in what we can do with money from the federal government, but also at the state share. we were looking for a way to keep ill people from going into nursing homes. we wanted to find a way to provide health savings accounts to beneficiaries who could stay in their homes but retain the medical care they needed. we did construct a plan and improved care and save money. amazingly, kathleen sebelius, the governor at the time, signed onto this plan. but our request for a waiver was rejected here in washington. today, 451 waivers have been granted in the medicaid program. but there were thousands of waivers like that in kansas that
were rejected. we tried to find out how many have been denied over the years but they would not release details. our rejection was one of them. it is disappointing that some much authority can be put in the hands of a federal bureaucrat for medicare and medicaid services, who may never have been to kansas. it is disheartening that states have to battle washington when trying to do good things for the people of our states. too much red tape kept us from improving medicate in kansas. 49 other states are locked into the same issues with washington when it comes to this program, instead of having the essential flexibility we need to administer the programs in our state in state interest. we know that governors from across the entire nation have expressed their desires to have more flexibility with medicaid funding. this budget offers exactly that. in converting federal spending
on medicaid to block grants, governors, state legislators, and other state-level administrators will have the ability to direct funds in a manner that works best for their state, not the washington status quo. a complete the funding of the president pick health care plan is a good thing -- a complete defunding of the president's health-care plan is also a good thing that helps states. this was a bad program to begin with and proposed that we spend more money on medicaid. that is not the solution. there are those who will try to label these changes as uncaring about low-income americans during hard times. but such a judgment could not be further from the truth. by lifting the heavy hand of washington from these programs,
we make them more effective. there are people who truly need assistance. doing nothing about medicaid is no longer an option. real change is desperately needed. this is a real solution to the changes we need. >> i have appreciated being able to work with you on this budget. for years around here, there has been a failure to lead. with this plan, we have shown the courage to help the american people find the truth about the debt -- the debt crisis. we have proposed honest solutions. we are leading. the 2012 budget resolution is a significant step toward restoring financial stability to our nation and also guarantees that my children, your children,
our grandchildren will be able to inherit a strong nation instead of a bankrupt one. this will convert medicare spending into a block grant tailored to meet each states needs. having in indiana secretary of state for eight years, i understand the importance. this gives states the flexibility to tailor medicaid to fit their needs. this would naturally improve the health-care safety net for low income individuals and improve access to care. americans deserve to make their own health care decisions instead of being put under the control of nameless, faceless washington bureaucrats. this would also make significant strides in streamlining government budgets. i operated my office in 2010 on
a 1987 budget, not adjusted for inflation. since 2008, spending in federal agencies has increased by 24%. that jumps to 80% when you include stimulus funds. this bill puts a cap on spending for 2012 and outlines a path to the next decade. it also eliminates hundreds of duplicative federal programs and takes overlapping job-training programs and turns them into productive scholarships. i know about government agencies. i used to run one. it had no more employees in 2010 than it did in the early '80s. the president has increased the size and scope of the federal government and added new bureaucrats. our plan will boost private- sector employment by reducing
the federal work force by 10% for the next three years through attrition. it also places a freeze on salaries for the next five years. it ends taxpayer bailout of failed financial institutions. it privatizes the business of government-owned housing. they are no lager at exposing taxpayers to thousands of dollars of risks. the u.s. economy barrault's 42 cents of every dollar it spends. it spends nearly two-thirds of those dollars on the interests caused by that borrowing. that is social and economic programs like medicare and social security. all these programs are insolvent or quickly becoming so. when the federal government borrows money to pay for today's benefits, we are passing along a tax increase to our children and
grandchildren. i call it the birth tax because every baby born today owes $45,000 as his share of the public debt. every taxpayer owes $127,000 of public debt. as everyone knows, it only gets worse -- much worse. these changes are big enough to make a difference. americans are finally getting a budget they deserve. >> it has been my honor to be part of this process. not coming from a political background, i understand that every decision has to be done
based on efficiency and effectiveness. it is not effective and efficient, we cannot continue to do it that way, because we cannot enforce it. americans have passion for their families and the community. we love to invest in each other and in gauge each other in a personal way. that is not necessarily true in only the government. we have very different views of what those jobs can provide instability. the question i bring to the table is when are we going to get serious as a nation and deal with the national debt? this is not a partisan issue. it is an american issue. we both have to work together to resolve it. there are programs designed to help america. the leaders of today are saying times are tough. i think a limited easier on me by making it tougher on my
children and my grandchildren. that is not a way for us to be able to lead. we must get started. we cannot even get to a balance in a year. we are so far out of balance it will take seven years just to get back to that point, but it must be balanced. i know some people have said this budget is extreme. i have to tell you that i agree. it is extremely overdue. both sides of the aisle understand this is a framework that will set the table for the budget. this is focused on promoting growth, job growth, critical government functions, and giving us on the course to pay back the debt. this is a real plan for real
solutions. americans want to note the government is working to solve problems, not just talk about them. social security is one of the issues i hear about time and time again. this budget specifically states that real stabilization of social security will come when all sides work together. first, we must have all signed at the table, a hossein there is an issue. if the program is paying out more than it is taking in, the president would work with the trustees. the house and senate would work with their members to create a plan. mr. chairman, we have been spending money to bail out of our economy, saying someday we will pay this down. this budget just said that some day is today. for that, i yield back. >> i would like to yield five minutes to the gentleman from texas. >> thank you for holding today's
markup for a fiscal resolution. this is a pivotal time for everyone in this room, because it allows us to reshape the direction our country will take from this point forward. i would like to thank my colleagues and the committee staff for working tirelessly to produce a plan of which we can all be proud. it is not only innovative, it is bold and honest with the american people about the tough decisions that lie ahead. coming from the private-sector, as the ceo for a mid-sized business, the congress has confirmed my previous analysis that washington does not understand how the real world works. i knew the fiscal situation was precarious. after being sworn in, i was disappointed to learn that the fiscal situation is much worse than a previously thought. our country has gotten to this point through reckless and unrestrained spending, blatant
disregard port real-world budgeting, and a lack of the acceptance to balance and a sustainable deficit. i am a cpa, but it does not take a cpa. most americans know these are not the guidelines under which we can operate. our new budget comes at just the right time, because we can no longer afford what has rapidly become the status quo. we can change the headlong rush toward insolvency. the real spending cuts, unprecedented reform of entitlements -- this allows us to stay true to the pledge to the american people to remove us from a debt-driven economic crisis and restore certainty for the private sector and spur job creation. a few weeks ago, the president issued this budget.
this budget, i think should be returned to sender. insufficient funds. we heard from the other side about how bad this budget is. we are proposing to introduce it on our side. that is a very disingenuous comment, because the other side issued no budget last year. the must have opened it up and seen the grafts -- seen the draft you saw today -- and seen the graphs you saw today and decided to hide it from the american people. on the other hand, i think this budget should have been entitled "restoring america's prosperity for future generations," because that is what it does. that is why i was elected to this office. thank you. >> i will yield myself the remainder of the time. if another member on our side
wants recognition. we have had a lot of testimony here this year. we have had expert witnesses from all sides of the i'll come and testify. we have learned a lot about what other countries have gone through when they have had similar experiences. this is not the first time countries have experienced debt crises. there is a lot to learn. what we have learned, looking at all the experiences of different countries over history, is that if you try to tax your way out of the debt crisis in does not work. it slows down your economy. successful countries to cut themselves out of the ditch we are walking ourselves into did it by controlling spending, cutting spending, reforming the way government spends. that is what we are proposing. it is time honored solutions that have worked in the past. what are our values? what are the principles we are
applying to try to preempt a debt crisis here in america? first, let's get the government focused on its critical mission. those americans who believe in a limited government do not believe in bad government. we believe in a limited but effective government. let us focus on what the government does well. when it does so much, it does not do anything very well. one of the things we think we ought to achieve, and what are the values brought forth in this budget? we believe there ought to be a safety net. let me explain. there needs to be a safety net for people who cannot help themselves. there needs to be a safety net for people who are down on their luck. all of us have constituents in that category because of this last recession. we do not want to turn the safety net into a hammock. that would cause complacency and
dependency and prevent people from ever getting on their feet. we want the safety net to result in jobs. we want people to become independent and self-sufficient. our safety net is tearing apart at the seams. our safety net has reverse incentives which are encouraging people not to get up on their own and be self-sufficient. we want to fix that. we have 49 different job- training programs spread across nine different government agencies. we do not even measure whether they work or not. we do not know whether they are getting people into careers. what we are trying to do here is not say that all the best answers come from washington, d.c., and we can give it to a bureaucracy down the street. our communities know how people are suffering.
wisconsin is a lot different than ohio. it is a lot different than pennsylvania, then oregon. let us fix our states and you fix yours. that is the idea here, federally. the other point is that we want to make sure that this safety net works, that it is sustainable, that it does not go bankrupt, and that it gets people away from dependence. the me talk about some stuff we should not be spending money on. we should not be spending money on corporate welfare. crony capitalism is not capitalism. picking winners and losers in washington through spending or tax giveaways or reading the rules and the regulations -- we have to stop doing that. governments to try to pick
let us have taxes in such a way where we have predictability, we have certainty. we are an international economy with the second highest tax rate in the industrial world. we are pushing jobs overseas. if you look at the trend of takeovers of foreign countries of american companies, it is because of tax policy. we want to make things in america and sell them overseas. we want countries to headquarters here. our tax code is the jalopy of the 20th-century. it is not making us grow and it is not creating jobs. this is where we are going. this is a chart by the cbo. they are assuming our interest
rate will be 4% to 5%. even if our economy grows or a debt crisis occurs, or qe 2 goes perfectly as planned, there is no way interest rates are going to stay like this. that is a rosy situation, that red line. the credit markets are watching. we have to put out a plan that gets that under control. we have to show our constituents, our children, and the economy, the bond markets, that we are not broken in america and are going to get this fixed. a debt crisis is going to be painful. we do not want to have a debt crisis. we have all the expert testimony. economists, bond market
specialists -- they all say we have two to five years. the point i want to make is that we are going to hear a lot of political rhetoric today. we are going to have different ideas and different values. but at the end of the day, we all represent the american people. we all want our constituents to prosper. we all want people to have upward mobility. we cannot just keep using rhetoric. we cannot use accounting tricks. if the debt crisis hits, you know what is going to happen -- higher taxes, cuts that are indiscriminate and across the board, hitting the most vulnerable, and inflation.
what we are showing here is we can impress the drivers of our debt, entitlement programs, in a gradual way right now. the changes to people who have already retired or who are 10 years away from retiring. people have already organized their lives around these programs. we want to be able to keep these promises. these problems are growing into bankruptcy. we want to believe programs are going to be there when we retire. nobody in my generation believes that. let us put these programs on a sustainable trajectory so they are there. what we are talking about with medicare is taking the successes in prescription drug programs,
the model that works for us and federal employees, and deliver health care like that. medicare prescription drugs -- choice and competition. we want providers, doctors, hospitals competing against each other for our business, so that we are in control. the only alternative is to have the government run it and have the government ration it. we do not stand for that. at the end of the day, we are probably going to have a disagreement about these things. that is what this is all about. at the end of the day, we will
have a disagreement about the role of the federal government. and that is legitimate. that is why we are here. we believe this government was created very special. america is not just a place. it is an idea. that idea is our rights come from nature and god. so we think the role of the federal government is to protect our rights. we think the goal of the federal government is to promote equal opportunity so people can make the most of their lives. we do not believe we should transform the role of federal government into equalizing the results of our lives. we believe in equal opportunity, not equal outcomes. it to transform the federal government to that role, it is good to get a lot bigger.
we have to meet all our obligations to be fiscally responsible and grow our economy. we need a sensible responsible target to our nation's challenges. we need to make government efficient without hurting economic growth. we need to invest wisely in american economic competitiveness. we cannot cut innovation or scientific research. republicans are slashing education while protecting tax breaks to big oil and gas companies. they are gutting medicaid law keeping tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% of americans. republicans are cutting and the structure and innovation will protecting tax loopholes for the wealthiest corporations. this is not good come of cornell and certainly into the future. 3 million jobs are projected to
be lost. americans will see lower wages and seniors will lose their health security. president clinton left republicans with a robust economy, 3.9% economic growth and 21 million private-sector jobs created. republicans pushed through massive tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% of americans and expanded new government programs without paying a single dime for them. for those who do not remember how the story ends, economic growth averaged an anemic 2.1% as the economy proceeded to lose 650,000 private-sector jobs over the next eight years of the bush administration. understand that the principles they used them were based on the heritage foundation projections that cutting taxes to the wealthiest would lead to 11 million new jobs.
the reality? 650,000 private-sector jobs lost. they are using the exact same model in presenting the budget today. they did not learn any of the lessons from that recent history, so here we go again, spending $700 billion in tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires, spending billions more to protect the wealthiest estates in the country, reducing the tax rates for top earners, and subsidizing special interests, all while slashing health care, education, and technology to grow the economy. the republican budget bills america. privatizing medicare just shift the financial burden to our seniors and families. slashing spending for education and innovation not create economic growth. it just makes us less prepared for the global work face --
workplace. this budget is a blatant attack on seniors, children, the elderly, and our ability to grow. i want to give time to call tom coburn -- to paul tanko. >> thank you. the republican budget is no path to prosperity. rather, it is a road to ruin for the american middle-class. this plan lays out cuts to education at a time when we are falling desperately behind in our commitment to our children, a historic attack on health care, and hundreds of thousands of jobs eliminated, all in the name of austerity. meanwhile, corporations ship our
jobs overseas and our wealthiest citizens see a road to riches paved in special interest handout. this has nothing to do with a balanced budget. this plan and eight trillion dollars to the national debt. it is about paying special- interest handouts. they are gobbling up 90% of the pie, leaving everyone else to fight for the scraps. we are in the same ranks as you
got that and nicaragua for income inequality. -- as uganda and nicaragua for income inequality. this road to ruin budget would drastically grow the gap between the rich and the poor, further widening of the middle class. this budget is a threat to our national economic security. decades of experience have taught us that the best way to reduce the deficit is to put americans back to work. opponents -- my colleagues have claimed the national debt would be paid off by 2010. but the republican proposal does not create a single job and will put hundreds of thousands out of work. it is a fantasy to claim otherwise. i could feign surprise at the
lack of wisdom and humanity evident in these proposals. but frankly it is nothing new. this proposal is based on an idea, and i theology -- and ideology. this party has a track record of squandering historic opportunities in the only times they have taken control of the house of the past six decades. they have attempted to shut down government on both occasions. this influx tremendous damage on the economy -- inflicted tremendous damage on the economy. i call it dereliction of duty, and i am afraid. >> once again, the republican budget has made clear that they do not think job creation matters. i wonder if my colleagues who are supporting the resolution have read it. it does not create jobs.
the republican budget increases the deficit, with more tax breaks for the super wealthy. even david stockton has observed that these are terribly irresponsible when 1% of the earners in our country now control 25% of the wealth of our nation. isn't that enough? wall street needs to be regulated. let's not forget what got us into the worst recession since the great depression. the moral hazard that preceded this was delivered by wall
street. rather than recovering was taken from the american people with the republican plan, they cut the arms of the tiny agencies in washington. that are cutting $100 million in the securities and exchange commission and the commodity futures trading corporation that has the hope of getting some of our money back. instead, they are increasing our deficit as they allow wall street banks which walked away with our treasury to pay taxes at one-third the rate of businesses in my district. when you have these kind of tilted policies, where six big banks -- wells fargo, citigroup, chase, bank of america, and morgan stanley -- walk away with billions of dollars, which cannot balance the budget. where is the shared sacrifice? the ceos are not using tax breaks to invest in america. they are taking them away from our country. they have all kinds of foreign
havens were the avoid paying u.s. taxes. it is clear our nation needs a pro-growth budget. we need a budget that puts everything on the table and everyone on the table and does not tilt toward those that game the tax system. we need a budget that does not stall the recovery. the americans want jobs, not tax breaks for the wealthy. >> let me start out thinking the chairman of the board for framing the issue for us, but providing us with demagoguery, and it is scary. for years, republicans have tried to say that cutting taxes for the wealthiest 2% would somehow improve things for wealthy families. when they got a chance under george bush, the results were
not surprising. in 2000, the republicans inherited a surplus. eight years later, president obama took office with an eight trillion dollar deficit. the whole time, republicans demagogued us for spending. they see the long-term unemployed as hostages to force us to pass another huge round of tax cuts to the wealthiest 2%. no sooner was that money spent on these egregious tax cuts than republicans started clamoring for cuts in spending on programs for women, children, seniors, and working families. they claim they are reducing deficits by cutting spending, are really they are just paying for tax cuts for the rich and middle class. americans want a system that is fair, but look at the distribution of wealth in this
country. you can see that the top 10% of the population controls 90% of the wealth. the mean income for the family in the bottom 9% -- it is not fair. it is not right. look at what all this inequality has done. we are a clear out liar in terms of income inequality. we have the worst problems of any developed country in terms of literacy, imprisonment, drug and alcohol abuse. the list goes on and on. even ronald reagan fifth budget director called the millionaire tax cut unconscionable. where is the sense of fair play? this is not a budget. it is a dogmatic attack on the middle class. i yield to my esteemed colleague
from texas. >> thank you very much. this is not a path to prosperity. it is a path to mediocrity. it is a path to insecurity. it is the wrong path. we welcome a spirited debate about our economic future. mr. ryan fails to offer a balanced approach to our shared objective of a balanced budget. in short, we democrats do not think this republican budget is our cup of tea. yes, this is a choice of two futures for our country, but the choice as budget presents is really one between their ideologies and reality. it is between a fact-based analysis and efficient plans,
and ideology. the harsh cuts will bring real insecurity to the many, of providing largess for the wealthiest americans, who have been taking a bigger and bigger share of our national wealth. whenever you read the terms " modernize "or "reform" realize these are euphemisms for "less." less retirement security. less health security. less economic security. this budget does not share the sacrifice. it certainly does spread the pain. we get less of what matters. and how they choose to tackle that that is consistent with their ideologies. this proposal, i believe, makes very wrong choices for our future.
there is, for example, in much better alternative than eliminating $4 billion from early education and student financial assistance that will only deny students the means to get the education to live up to their god-given potential. instead, i would cut the $4 billion being spent every year through the tax code to enable wall street financial enterprises to avoid taxes on profits from loans and financial activity overseas, and which are at the same time encouraging the export of american jobs. instead of eliminating $500 million in cancer research and other scientific research that saves lives and creates jobs in america, i would eliminate the $500 billion a year spent on what is called the look through provision that enables multinationals to ship in come moved abroad through foreign
subsidiaries. instead of eliminating funding for our crumbling bridges, i would eliminate the loophole that grants a tax cut deduction on interest charges when you borrow money to build a factory overseas without having to pay taxes on the income you earned from the factory. we need to stop exporting american jobs, american manufacturing, american tax revenues, and start developing a competitive course for rebuilding america. we can choose to have the same effect on the deficit by choosing to close the loopholes instead of yielding to harmful republican cuts. i yield to my colleague from florida. >> we need a realistic and fair debt reduction and budget plan. unfortunately, the republican- proposed budget is not it. one of the problems is that the republican budget is built around protecting the rich and
powerful, the subsidies to big oil companies, and corporations that ship jobs overseas. it is not fair that you do that at the same time you dismantle medicare as we know it. you cut our students, teachers, and education, and diminish our scientific research. these are the wrong priorities. one of the issues that has gone unnoticed is the spending programs through the tax code. we were advised that the tax code is littered with exemptions, special credits, deductions, and exclusions. she said if you were going to be realistic in debt reduction, you have to reduce, if not eliminate, the lot of these. the republican budget does not touch it.
these are special interests and preferential treatment for those who can afford to have high-paid lobbyists in washington. the government now spends $1.20 trillion through those tax expenditures. that is more than half of what we raise through revenue. those tax expenditures should be subjected to the same scrutiny as the preparations and your marks, but they are not. i want you to think about the company in your community over the past decade that has closed down and move those jobs overseas. i bet mr. tonko can tell us if you in new york. i bet texas can identify the companies that closed down. they did not just eliminate those jobs. those jobs popped up in mexico. they popped up in china. largely, that is because of this perverse incentive in our tax code that provides a large tax
the bandage for building and moving factories to low-tax countries. the gao has advised these tax havens that encourage movement of jobs overseas. the latest new york times article got a lot of attention, because ge, one of our greatest corporations in america -- it was revealed they have declared $14.20 billion in profits but have paid nothing in u.s. taxes. america's budget should be one that encourages jobs in america, where we make things in america, where we support students and teachers guard financial duties. >> we will talk further about the cuts in the republican budget. >> the focus for congress must
be getting america back to work and keeping our economy moving forward. reducing the federal deficit is a necessary step to restore america's economic strength. the fastest way to shrink the deficit is to grow the economy and get america back to work. but if america is not leading the global economy, we will not be able to sustain economic growth and job creation. last week, the pew charitable trust released a report entitled "who is winning the clean energy race." this fund investments have grown 630% since 2004. last year alone, private investors in clean energy technology rose by 30%, a record $243 billion. clean energy technology is one of the fastest-growing sectors in the global economy. it is necessary that america
compete and win this race. but america is losing ground, and losing it fast. in 2008, america was number one in the world in private clean energy investment. by 2010, america had slipped to three, behind china and germany. why is america losing the clean energy race? the director explains the united states position as a leading destination for clean energy investment is declining because the policy framework is weak. budgets are about choices. the republican budget choices /investments in clean energy research, development, and implementation, the very policies american means,
american companies made. clean energy companies need this. instead, the american budget chooses to protect $46 billion in taxpayer subsidies to oil and gas companies. this chart clearly shows a republican preference for spending oil and gas subsidies while other investments in clean energy do not happen.
hezbollah that our education system in this country, we can happen -- as we look at our education system in this country, we can have an honest dialogue about where we are at. the only way we can have the medicine for the status quo is to recognize that we have a problem. there is a sickness in our system, and it does not work. modest cuts to one area will not to jeopardize it to other areas. it will begin to send a message that they have to fix it. the result of a head start study indicates that the benefits of accessing it @ 8 four, are largely absent by first grade. it is worse for the three year olds that go into the program.
negative impact a three-year old. the time to send a message to managers that are mismanaging is now. how would withdraw funds to force management to do better. if we did not do better, and then you would add additional changes until you at some point got improvement in the program. we are not advocating no money. just that no longer will the status quo be except will.
we are talking about choices, a change in this country when the feds got involved. they got involved with the civil rights and youngsters in certain states of of a country that believe in separate but equal. i am making choices. my children got a head start when i was able to afford it. there are youngsters that to not have the money to afford it. when we talk about curriculum, with the fed policy-makers to determine it. they do not know about curriculum or what goes on in
yours for cancer, stroke, diabetes, and other illnesses at the national institute for health. >> she is recognized for nine minutes. >> i recommend hard for cuts -- i have a recommendation regarding harmful cuts. there are devastating cuts that would affect our biomedical research program. this is essential to callous scientific breakthroughs and will save millions of american lives. it is no coincidence that our country has been at the forefront of this research for chronic diseases. so many major public health breakers for cancer and others, would not have happened without federal support.
these are at the court as to why the cures for cancer and other diseases has declined for years. some want to derail the progress with some cuts had to research at the national institutes of health. some say we need to make these cuts to reduce our deficit. but cutting these programs as the wrong approach. we can create jobs, strengthen the middle class, and bring down deficits. the republicans reckless plan failed on all counts. there cuts to nih kills jobs. this supports three had a 50,000 highly skilled jobs in the 50 states. there are other jobs created in the private sector. they would put almost 1 million jobs at of risk.
their cuts threatens the recovery of local economies all across our country. we fund support at 3000 medical universities in the research institutes. our grants help provide research. slashing funding would be devastating to towns all across america. these cuts increase the deficit. each dollar generates more than twice as much and output of goods and services amounts to $2.21 return to every singer nih dollars spent. -- single nih dollar spent. important investments in alzheimer's research would save billions of dollars. caring for each of these
patients costs $5,000 a month. we could -- five genes were discovered in connection to alzheimer's disease just the other day. when a preventive care can drastically reduce the cost of caring for terminally ill patients. we can make smart investments in our medical and physical health. we must make these investments so we can stem the tide of future disease rates. cancer is projected to nearly double by 2020, particularly among the aging baby boomer population. we need to develop the tools to
prevent and cure these diseases. we are making great strides in dealing with a cardiovascular disease epidemic in our nation. mr. chairman is a breast cancer survivor. i understand -- i am a breast cancer survivor. i & an appreciative those that are working tirelessly to end this disease. 29,610 people will be diagnosed cancer in wisconsin. each day, 81 people will hear those dreaded words that rocked my own life, which is, you have cancer. thousands of your constituents are working to beat these diseases. wisconsin receives millions of
dollars from the nih last year in support of medical research across your state. do you want to eliminate these jobs for the people of wisconsin? i am living proof of the vital gains made by the nih. we cannot rest on our laurels by cutting spending now. to many people face a world that has grown accustomed to obesity and diabetes. to many women lose hope with a disease that has no cure. supported this amendment to prevent cuts from endangering our recovery, a work-family is, and our lives. i yield one minute -- 1.5 minutes to the gentle lady. >> i thank my colleague. america is the world leader in medical research. let's keep it that way.
let's continue to invest in medical research, cancer, diabetes, alzheimer's, to promote higher wage jobs the that benefit all of our communities across the country. jobs in scientific research at our colleges and universities benefit greatly by nih grants. biomedical research is the wave of the future. now that we can map the human genome, i am convinced that we will find the cure for cancer. we will save a lot of money, because we will have more structured and efficient treatment. i spoke with the ceo of a moffitt cancer center in tampa, florida. it is one of the premier cancer research institutes in america. he said china and india are going to eat out for lunch. they are investing more and more
in scientific research. we cannot take a step back. we should not take a step back. we have to continue to fund our public lavatories and private laboratories. this is something that the government does better than the private sector. we are coordinated, more efficient, and can dive to the appropriate research. we have no more time -- and try the appropriate research. photophore this amendment 8 and vote for job security right here in the u.s.a. i yield back. >> -- votes for this amendment 8 -- vote for this amendment 8 and vote for job security right here in the u.s.a. i yield back.
>> i yield 45 seconds to the next speaker. >> if this were a secret ballot, i think it would pass overwhelmingly. i hope that we can take comfort in the fact that it is not a secret ballot, but something that each and every one of us should be proud of and support and defend to our friends at home that will pay dividends for future generations. >> to close out our time, i guild of the rest of the time to the gentleman from kentucky. >> i thank my colleague. there is a great deal of human cost here. let's talk in terms of numbers. we spend over $98 billion a year on treating cancer. we spend hundreds of billions
of dollars on cardiovascular care. these are the things that are driving our long-term health- care costs. the way we can solve our crisis is to invent our way out of it. at this point to reduce funding for nih is counterproductive. >> is there any member could wants to request time in the opposition? >> i do. i want to thank my classmate on her ascension to the chair. mr. chairman, we have come into the looking glass again. devastating cuts, shameful cuts, killing jobs. what if i were to tell the committee that there are no cuts
to nih in this budget. the decrease is appropriate. any cuts that come out of a specific program will be carried out through the appropriations process, which is where the argument she made a long right now. -- belongs right now. the research is important at the nih and the cdc and on and on. if one were to believe the other side, this is what the charge would look like with money going down for nih. this is the chart for the funding for nih. from 11 billion to 1995 to 30 billion in 2010.
that does not count the $10 billion increase from the stimulus. $40 billion for nih. if money were to solve these things, we should spend an unlimited amount. but the fact that the resources that the nih has -- there were gaps in the ability to monitor the funding process. there is a question as to whether or not they can identify where the money is spent. even if you believe what my friends on the other or i'll say, -- i'll other side of the aisle will say, think about
these things. some tell me, give us the resources, but let us make the decisions about where the money goes. this amendment would preclude the ability of the clinicians in the scientists to make the decisions about where the biggest bang is for the buck in terms of solving the remarkable challenge that we have in health care. i think there are incredible assumptions made and remarkable hyperbole made. the funding for nih has gone up over 150% over the last decade and a half. i would like to yield to the gentleman from idaho for the time he may consume. >> i agree with everything my colleague from the other side of the aisle said about in my age.
let me congratulate ms. wasserman schulz to your new appointment. [unintelligible] [laughter] there is probably not a vigorous supporter of nih here than i am. i look at the 27 institutions and the research they are doing. i say it is the best kept secret in washington, d.c. they need to let the american people know what they do. they do incredible work. i do not want to cut any spending in any program i like. one thing is driving this budget resolution more than anything else that we have to address.
a $1.60 trillion deficit. $14 trillion in debt. if we do not have the courage to stand up and address this with tough cuts and cuts to some programs that i like, there is going to be no funds for nih in future years or any other biomedical research. that is just the reality. we have to stand up and make tough decisions. there are no cuts in this budget to nih. there are no cuts in this budget to nih. this is not the appropriations committee. once they get their allocation after we have done the budget resolution, labor health and human services will make the determination as to have the
appropriations will be made to various agencies within the budget. i do not know what that is going to look like. i hope we can keep it to a minimum. nih does great work. will there be cuts? i do not know of an agency that will suffer some cuts because of the fiscal situation we find ourselves in. we need to be honest with the american people and let them know that. i give speeches across this country into two chambers of congress just like you do. how many of you think that the $14 trillion debt that the country faces is a serious threat to our economic future and national security? every hand goes up. then i asked, how many think a portion of the problem is the spending that the federal
government does, and we need to reduce spending? every hand goes up. i say by the time we are done, everyone of you will be mad at us if we do what is right for this country. we have to have the courage to cut things you will like. that is the reality. have the courage to stand up and do what is right. do this budget. but the appropriations committee look at what you have given us, and we will make tough decisions. there are no cuts for tonight specifically in this budget. >> i yield a minute from the gentleman -- for the gentleman from california. >> they used to be tremendous investments by the productive sector.
there was profit in it. the policies of this government under democratic store ship will take the profit out of it. there is the notion that all profit is waste. if we can remove waste will profit, we can remove cost. profit is the incentive that drives the innovation and research and development. once you remove profit from the equation, you have demonstrated the difference -- it is not my time to yield. >> i have not finished saying what i came to say.
republicans increased doubled nih funding in the 1990's as evidenced by this charge. i want to remind people that a lot of accusations going back and forth across the table. this budget does not say anything about nih. funding could increase under this budget. they will get a bucket of resources, money they will provide -- divide as the committee sees fit as to where to put the resources. no cuts to nih in this budget.
the decisions will be made by the appropriations committee. no specific cuts to nih in this budget. i yield back the balance of my time. >> our friends at the republican party say we are not cutting nih. what are we cutting? how about health benefits for federal retirees. there are a variety of imported services affected. i distinctly remember the chairman standing on the house floor committing that the
republicans would never cut nih. h r one has dramatic cuts to nih. the track record is clear. republicans do not make sure that they maintain the appropriate amount on health care funding. -- on this funding. the proof is in the pudding. i yield back. >> all those in favor say aye. those opposed say no. a recorded vote has been requested. we will call the roll. mr. garrett, no. mr. simpson, no. mr. campbell, no.
vote? >> on that vote, the ayes are 15 and the notes are 22. >> the amendment is not agreed to. >> the amendment is number nine offered by mr. mccollum. >> the gentle lady from minnesota is recognized for nine minutes. >> i am an appropriate share. i understand how the 550 account works. i am concerned about what is going on in this budget proposal. the 550 account is being cut 15%. that is what it appears. we need a discussion on what it looks like.
some will survive a 15% cut. other areas, a 15% cut is very meaningful. medicare, military help -- we said we are not going to do that. other programs are up on the chopping block. children health insurance, benefits for federal retirees. food and drug administration, health resources, cdc, -- substance abuse, mental health services. i offer this in the spirit that
the first time i was on the budget committee, i was on the majority side. we did take some ideas from minorities. i welcome your direction on this. i will lighten things up and say i think you will sink your teeth into this amendment. the food and drug administration needs to be adequately funded to protect our nation's food supply and to prevent food borne illnesses from happening. it needs to properly investigate outbreaks when they occur. minnesota has been affected by this in the past few weeks. there were tainted hazel nuts. the work by the professionals at the university of minnesota and other state department of health
played a critical role in diagnosing the causes of these outbreaks. our states are facing tough choices in what they will fund. they rely on the funding from the food and drug administration to help them be able to do their job. last year, there was a massive aid recall. they pulled more than half a billion and its from gaucherie store shelves. 14 people became ill. 14 individuals died. salmonella turkey burgers affected dozens of people. arizona, california, georgia, illinois, washington. it is because we have location to work with state health departments that we're able to save lives and make the recall
happen faster. in the past five years, the additional outbreaks with contaminated spinach, lettuce, and peanut butter. it is made national headlines. i do not think this is a time where we should be putting a were children, families, seniors in danger with cuts to food safety budgets. we are more interdependent on a national food chain and we have been before at any other time in our life. we are losing federal inspectors at slaughterhouses. i grew up in a meat packing town. i know the importance of meat inspectors. if we do not have good meat inspectors and good on the
ground prevention, it will lead to a decrease in production of sales and an increase of a food borne illness. consumers will lack confidence in the safety of our food. it will ultimately hurt the economy. outbreak of spinach estimated $200 million lost to producers. the peanut butter salmonella outbreak cost about a billion dollars. this budget, we need to have confidence in our food. mom and dad should not have to think twice about what to do feet -- about whether to feed their child a pinup butter sandwich. mom and dad to not have to worry about the scrambled eggs they made for breakfast. one out of every six people in our country become subject to a
food borne illness. three dozen people die -- died last year. if we can find the money in the federal budget to increase tax breaks, we can find the money to protect the food that every single american eats. we can protect them from food borne illness. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. i yield two minutes to my colleague. >> i think her for presenting this amendment. it ensures that the food safety legislation signed into law by president obama will be fully funded. many people on both sides of the aisle voted for that legislation. the purpose was to have enough
inspectors on the ground to keep our food supply safe. the united states food supply is 99% safe. there is that argument. the ability to sue is sufficient to ensure the safety -- i do not think that is the case at all. this reflects the chance that you will get sick eating your next meal. the risk with each individual meal is a low. we eat over 1000 meals a year. at a the risk and you end up with for 8 million americans, one in six getting sick from food each year. that is a fact.
you are entitled to your opinion. i am not entitled to the facts. the costs of food borne illnesses are shared by many sectors of the economy, which could produce safer food. if we cut spending, there will not be enough meat inspectors on the ground. i do not think we should take the chance. i ask for your support on the amendment. this is serious business, if you have been in a situation where many people have been ill on what they had eaten in good faith. i yield back. >> you have 42 seconds. >> i am trying to figure out how to enter this in the record.
i will do 30 seconds' worth. seafood salads april 1. fish april 31. bubble gum march 23. fresh cantaloupe, march 18. sandwiches, march 12. coconut water, march 11. protein powder, march 9. these are all recalls. pretty ugly stuff that was in them. i have pages of this. they are happening every day. side up for the food alert from the fda on your blackberry. >> the time has expired. anybody seek opposition? >> i would like to respond to the amendment. >> go ahead. >> this deals with the very
fundamentals of each of us, the necessity of eating and the food supply. as a farmer, going up on a fourth generation farm, food is near and dear to my heart. being elected to congress last november and being here for the vote on the food safety act is one that i was very intrigued by. i watched the process and was quite disappointed. after watching and hearing the debates over the years, washington continues to grow in size and scope of the government -- this bill does that. it grows government. it is spending dollars that we do not have. the democrat majority last year
did not find this bill. one pair of $4 billion would be added to our national debt. the bill is proposing to higher almost 17,800 employees, to win more regulation and regulatory services and enforcements. they would do these inspections across the country. this bill would levy fees and consumers could end up paying for these fees because of higher food costs. at a time where we are dealing with a tight budget as families , this is not what we need right now. are we concerned about the safety of our food? absolutely. we are more educated today then we have been.
whether it is through our schools or extension services. we are all concerned about the safety of our food and the citizens of our country. the united states is far ahead of the rest of the world when it comes to food production and the safety of our food. i am very concerned about the products that we grow and produce. i remember a young child, when my mom was taken down to the farmers' market to pick out whether it was watermelon, tomatoes, cucumbers, or green beans. it is a great experience. i know that we trust people to grow the products and produce they are willing to sell to us.
we live in a different day and age where america is feeding not only ourselves but greater parts of the world. we have tremendous opportunities and the farmers have an opportunity to feed the only americans but to export food around the rest of the world. here is a quick statistic. in 1940, a farmer was feeding 19 people. today, one farmer feeds 155 people. these are family farms. they are not the big corporate farms that many like to describe. 98% of farm operations today are family farming operations. only 2 percent are non family corporations. if you look at the epa standards and the amount of regulation that we have, you will find 17
sections ranging from bottled drinking water standards to unsafe food additives to margin regulations. it is very important that we are realistic in what we are expecting from small businesses across the country, because it will drive the cost of food up. every family is trying to figure out how to do more with less. our federal government is. to add additional regulation not only on our food supply chain, but also on the families across the country and what they will have to pay for in the cost of food. that may give you a couple of hivites as to what this bill is going to do and why we shed not be funding this. registration of a food
facilities. we just got done of repealing the 1099 requirement that we agreed upon that was detrimental to small businesses. we received bipartisan support in the house and senate in repealing the 1099 legislation. it would require more paperwork for small businesses. h. r. 2751 would authorize and require the secretary to suspend the legislation. this would give massive power to this agency. the bill would require the owner, operator or agent in charge of a facility to have a prevention plan that is written. i do not know what it entails, but i can only imagine that it will result in a massive pile
of paper work for small businesses, a family farm, those that are processing foods around the country not only for our enjoyment but also for the a need for us to eat. this bill is very generous in its language in where the money is to be spent. funding for food safety for 2011-2014, it basically authorizes the agency such sums as may be necessary. we are giving power to unelected bureaucracies and bureaucrats, who are not responsible to the people back home, who have elected us.
i believe this amendment should be defeated. we work within the system that we currently have. the gentle lady mentioned the some of the. but we are going to do is change of our philosophy from a reactive system to a preventive- based system. the government cannot prevent every accident from happening. just like when they mistakenly pointed at to make as for the cause of 1300 different ... in 2008. it was not tomatoes but tainted jalapenos. we will continue to hurt industries by saying we will prevent outbreaks of certain food illnesses, but we cannot stop every instance. we can learn from them, and as a producer, i do not want to
produce food that is going to generate any illness or be a hindrance to the safety in our communities. i found it insulting that they had to reach all the way down to our communities where the salt of the earth people are working hard every day to provide food for the many millions of people here and around the world. at this time, i would ask that this amendment be defeated. >> does he yield on the tomatoes? >> i have a couple of points that i want to make, and then i will finish up. some of the main critics of the bill have been organic food outfits, which there is a lot of support for.
my family farm has been producing it over the years. this is going to gain new powers. we have fiscal problems in washington and we want to generate more regulation and control from washington over the people that provided the daily needs for us and our food supplies. i yield back. >> one minute to close. >> i thank you for your discussion. you have pointed out a couple of things that we have agreement on. you have to have available all of the tools to track down these food borne illnesses. the incident regarding the tomatoes were they found out it was the jalapeno peppers was discovered at the university of minnesota, in large part because the funding from the federal
government was keeping that program moving forward so that consumers all across the united states found out. this is about inspection. fda officials range from once every five years to once every 10 years on average. the agency claims a high risk facilities on an annual basis. this is from the inspector general. we do not to do the inspection. >> those in favor say aye. those in favor say -- those opposed say no. the clerk will call the roll. mr. garrett, no.
cuts to police and firefighters. >> the chairman is talking about this in function 750. the outlays for firefighters function 450, the community and regional development. this amendment increases budget authority to ensure programs critical to our country's public safety and police and fire france receive adequate funding in the fiscal year 2012. we dealt with h r one a few years ago and amendments were put on the floor. the money was restored and it
was whether we were talking about the fire grants themselves or any other act. everybody in this room, your district -- i could tell you exactly what your district has received since 2001, wendy's went into effect. what will -- what we want to do in preserving these funds on the streets of our neighborhoods throughout small towns and large towns, thousands of police and firefighters to keep our communities safe. you know what is happening in your local budgets in your state budgets. in the fiscal year, 2011 fiscal -- the effect of -- the effect of >> as